Ecclesiology matters for the rapture debate beyond the argument given in Part 5. It is decisive for the interpretation of battleground passages like Matthew 24, the Thessalonian epistles, and parts of Revelation. This brief post will continue the series on the Rapture and the Nature of the Church by examining the effect ecclesiology has on `interpreting 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, and the “Restrainer.”

---

2 Thessalonians 2 is vital to the rapture question. In his chapter dealing with this epistle, Gundry is largely defensive.[1]  He does argue that if pretribulationism were true, Paul could have simply reminded them of it. Paul could have calmed their agitation—caused by the mistaken belief that the day of the Lord had arrived—if he simply reminded them of the imminent pretribulation rapture.

However, pretribulationists argue that this is exactly what Paul does. “Paul’s correction of error begins in the very first verse of the passage by appealing to the Thessalonians’ knowledge of the rapture.”[2] He appeals to, beseeches, begs them not to believe that the Day of the Lord was present, and he appeals to them by (concerning, with regard to) their prior knowledge of the coming of the Lord and their gathering together to him (the rapture). He goes on to give two more reasons: the apostasy must come first, and the man of sin must be revealed. Since none of these things have happened, they should not believe the Day of the Lord had come.

Paul continues with more reminders of previous teaching (cf. 2 Thess. 2:5, 6, 15). He says (2 Thess. 2:6-7),

You know what is restraining, that [the man of sin] may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

The identity of the restrainer is pivotal, because if the pretribulationist is correct the pretribulation rapture follows from this passage. Since the restrainer is identified as a “he,” the restrainer is a person. He has the power to restrain worldwide evil continually. Such a powerful and longstanding, personal agent could only reasonably be God Himself, but verse 7 curiously says that He is “taken” out of the way.

The Holy Spirit is the omnipresent God, yet in some sense He was sent to the earth on the day of Pentecost. His presence on the earth, in this new way, was and continues to be as He indwells the Church, making the Church the temple of God on the earth (1 Cor. 3:16-17; Eph. 2:21-22). The Holy Spirit could not be removed in the omnipresent sense, but only in the same sense in which He was sent. Since the Holy Spirit permanently indwells the Church, His removal from the earth would mean the removal of the Church as well.

“So long as the [Church] is on earth, the pretension [of the man of sin] to be God in His temple cannot take place or at least would have no influence.”[3] Hence, the rapture of the Church allows for the revealing of the Antichrist, whose first prophesied act is to begin the seventieth week with a covenant, and whose ultimate blasphemy occurs in the Jewish center of worship.

Gundry is compelled to agree that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit but argues His removal cannot be a reversal of Pentecost, because this would entail “a retrogression to the beggarly elements and immature status of the old covenant” and would “amount to an annulment of Christ’s exaltation.”[4] Instead, he argues against the grammar of most translations of verse 7, saying that the phrase taken out of the way should be rendered something like, “[He will] get out of the way.”[5]

However, the Spirit’s advent depends on Christ’s ascension; Christ’s ascension does not depend on the Spirit’s continued presence. So, the Spirit’s removal would not entail the annulment of Christ’s position. If Christ’s reason for sending the Spirit is to form His Bride (Acts 15:14), then the reversal of Pentecost would be the Spirit returning to heaven with her, a joyous occasion for the Lord, and a witness of judgment for the earth (cf. 2 Cor. 2:15-16). If the delay in God’s seventy weeks is to form the Church, then a return to conditions like that which existed prior to Pentecost makes perfect sense. At that point, God will be preparing to restore Israel. Such a “retrogression” is merely a prelude to even greater blessing. After all, what will Israel’s restoration be “but life from the dead?” (Rom. 11:15).

Next week’s post will look at the descriptions of Tribulation saints in the book of Revelation. Are they descriptions of the Church?

---

[1] His major offensive argument involves 2 Thess. 1:7, contending that the Thessalonians’ rest from their persecutors will occur when the Lord comes with his mighty angels. Since they will find rest and relief at the rapture, this must mean the rapture happens when the second coming occurs. However, the focus of this passage is on when the vengeance upon their persecutors will happen. Gundry must assume that “rest” means cessation of persecution, and not, for example the rest that comes from vindication. More than that, the focus of the epistle is to correct their misunderstanding about when the day of the Lord had arrived (2 Thess. 2:2). Here in chapter 1, Paul emphasizes that the Day of the Lord will be a day of rest for His own, and a day of vengeance for their persecutors. Gundry, Church and Tribulation, 112; John Nelson Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Vol. 5 (Addison, IL: Bible Truth Publishers, 2004), 104.

[2] John F. Walvoord, “Posttribulationism Today, Part X: Is the Tribulation Before the Rapture in 2 Thessalonians?” Bibliotheca Sacra 134 no. 534 (April-June 1977): 113.

[3] Darby, Synopsis Vol. 5, 111.

[4] Gundry, Church and Tribulation, 125-126.

[5] Ibid., 127.